AIG may join a lawsuit filed by its former chairman and chief executive, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, claiming the government’s handling of the bailout was too costly for shareholders. Greenberg, who still owns 20 percent of the company, filed the lawsuit in 2011.

As I noted at the time, he argues the takeover violated the constitutional rights of shareholders because the government took an 80 percent stake in the company — essentially absconding with investors’ shares — without paying them due compensation. That, the lawsuit argues, violates shareholders’ Fifth Amendment rights that bars the taking of private property for public use.

AIG’s board will consider joining the suit at a meeting on Wednesday. As the New York Times points out, the company faces something of a conundrum:

Its board members, most of whom joined after the bailout, owe a duty to shareholders to consider the lawsuit. If the board does not give careful consideration to the case, Greenberg could challenge its decision to abstain.

Should Greenberg snare a major settlement without AIG, the company could face additional lawsuits from other shareholders. Suing the government would not only placate the 87-year-old former chief but would put AIG in line for a potential payout.

Yet such a move would almost certainly be widely seen as an audacious display of ingratitude. The action would also threaten to inflame tensions in Washington, where the company has become a byword for excessive risk-taking on Wall Street.

What’s more, it was Greenberg’s poor management that led to AIG’s need of government aid in the first place.

He can grouse about the government taking his “property” but he was perfectly happy when the deal worked the other way. AIG was the biggest insurer of derivatives and a “too big to fail” institution, which came with an implicit guarantee backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. In other words, he took public property — our guarantee — for private use, and used it badly.

AIG’s bailout cost taxpayers more than $150 billion. Greenberg’s lawsuit is seeking $25 billion, which is supposed to represent the value of AIG’s stock at the time of the government takeover in 2008. As I pointed out at the time:

Had Greenberg been left in charge, had AIG been allowed to fail, his shares would be worthless. Only now that the government has bailed out the company is there any potential upside to the stock. Greenberg is essentially asking the government to save his investment from himself.

Now, he wants the company to join in this twisted logic. Perhaps Greenberg can use the courts to separate his actions from their ultimate consequence, but AIG itself shouldn’t get drawn into this trap. Taxpayers have suffered enough for the company’s bad decisions.

I hope they do join this lawsuit as it will set a precedent to deny any future consideration of bailouts by the feds. The consideration of AIG to “bite the hand that feeds it” can only be construed as the mindless zombie-like need to feed on profit at any cost.

Wait a second, hold on, you’re talking about ‘Job Creators” here and you can’t talk about them in such a disrespectful tone or they may decide to “create jobs” somewhere else. Remember your place and be thankful you’re still free (sort of).